Tikka T3 factory rings?

[BretN]

Both of my Tikka T3's were purchased used and neither came with the factory Tikka rings that fit the milled groove in the receiver. On my 30-06 I need to move the scope forward a bit, but am out of room w/ standard Weaver bases and Burris rings. I just bought a set of Tikka rings cheap on ebay.

I've heard of people having problems with the Tikka rings slipping under recoil. The gun shop owner I talked to has 3 Tikka's in his family all with standard factory rings and no problems. I'm hoping with just a 30-06 I will be OK. What have your experience been with standard Tikka rings? Thanks, Bret.

 

[Divernhunter]

We have 3 Tikka rifles--6.5X55/7-08 and 308win---that have been shot quite a bit. All use the factory rings and never had scope problems. I have heard of others but none provided any proof. It was always "I heard".
I do lap my rings on all rifles/pistols now. I do think that at least one of ours was not lapped. I am not taking any apart since "if it is not broken do screw with it" attitude I have

 

[35 Whelen]

Bret, there was a couple of storys floating around the internet of "soft screws" from the factory, it was probably
Originated by a either a Taley or DZ affectionaro, others simply stated " they looked cheezie"....
In any case to this day that is still being rumored . However
From a mechanical engineering stand point, to assume by substituting the factory " Integral Rings" for 'ANY' set of rings that are going to be held onto the top of the reciever via 4 tiny screws?? And then find that is somehow beneficial or superior to the ring fasten directly to the milled rail is a line of thinking that is sorta hard to follow.
The integral design is of course vastly superior in strength,
To four screws, period.
However I think it is much more likely the fact that the rings
Are simply held togeather via ONE screw vs Two, is a more
Likely culprit to the root of the rumors. One can only guess
But pre hex head screws, a major issue has always been a standard hardware store screwdriver (tapered blade) into a square slotted screw.......we all know the results of those two togeather???? I will be the first to suggest two screw pulling down from both sides of the ring will put more frictional force onto the scope tube than one screw does in
Physics class. However the real question is, does the ring need more tension against the bearing surface of the scope tube to keep it from slipping under heavy recoil ???
Assuming the rings were checked for true and lapped until you have atleast 75% of the rings radius matting perfectly with the scope tube ,and the screws draw down evenly to the correct torque. I doubt it. The amount of "hold" that would be transfered over the 75% of bearing surface on both rings would be considerable! However with all that said IF I was mounting a scope onto a large magnum caliber rifle, that was going to be used by a PH or Guide, where only the very best, would be acceptable : Then the WARNE rings, would likely be the best all round
Set up; they are sorta a massive on steroids, 4 screw Steel version, of the factory Integral......
The absolute slickest " best looking" set up was some guy was milling the bottom of the Taley rings to convert them to an intergal design and have them super low, they looked fantastic, and worked great . But I dont think he does them anymore :| ............ Good luck with the project, and for what its worth I have the factory rings on my .270 and they work fine :wink:
E

 

[truck driver]

+1 What E. said

 

[Anonymous]

I've had two TIkkas, a .300WSM and (currently) a .270. Both use the factory rings.

They seem pretty light and the screws are soft...but they are entirely adequate for the job they do.

One of the things that I see is that folks just can help but over tightening fasteners of all types and damage threads as a result. If you use your wits (and a torque wrench won't hurt) they should be entirely fine. My .270 was secondhand, and the original owner mounted the scope- he buggered up the screws a bit but they do just fine.

 

[Thebear_78]

I second the talleys, it is a very simple milling procedure to get them to cover the edge of the rail, literally any gunsmith or machine shop can easily do it. They were just better in all ways.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BretN]

Thanks for the info on the Tikka rings guys. I think for my 30-06, they will be just fine. They mounted up easily and gave me the room I needed to mount the scope correctly. Hopefully, I can try it out this weekend or next.

 

[Darkhorse]

I bought my Tikka in .308 back in 2007, I still use the factory rings with no problems. I do have a set of 30mm rings I used for awhile but their not on the rifle anymore.
My rifle is stainless and the rings look to be brushed aluminum to me so I take extra care when tightening them down. I would hate to wring a screw off in aluminum.
But still, they work good and zero never seems to move so I'm happy.

 

[C.Smith]

I had a tikka t3 lite in 3006. My rings did not last long before needing replacement.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Darkhorse]

C. Smith, do you think those rings are aluminum. I assumed mine were and that's where I thought the problem would be, steel screw into aluminum threaded hole, tightened down too tight.
Exactly what has happened to your ring, I can't quite make it out.
My steel 30mm rings work just like the Tikka rings and seem a lot tougher. Might be a good idea to go with a set in "1". My 30mm steel rings were made by Millet and they were a clone for the Tikka rings. But Brownells says they are no longer made. I think they have a new model adjustable for windage.

 

[BretN]

C.Smith, it looks like the recoil stud on the bottom of the front ring has bent from recoil. What kind of scope where you using? I guess it couldn't have been too big or you would've needed taller rings. Will have to keep an eye on mine. I have a 4-12 x40 Redfield on mine, pretty standard size and weight.

 

[35 Whelen]

Hummmmm, now that is pretty interesting right there ???
What sorta force would it actually take to do that??? The Tikka base is made from Aircraft grade 6061 T6 Aluminum, The pin is made from steel (try it with a magnet if you think its aluminum).
The pin is .155 diameter and .425 long. It is pressed into a .1545 hole in the base .300 deep, leaving .125 exposed to mate with the corresponding hole in the rail to lock the ring.So now the question is that pin slightly bent?? Obviously the hole appears elongated??? What sorta force would it take to bend that pin and elongate that hole pushing against the.125 part protruding from the bottom of the base??? Well if we were to assume the rear base was tight,and this base were tight; there would be almost NO force against that pin??? So I am now guessing that they were not, regardless of how tight the screws may have been.......(commonly happens if the floating foot binds binds crooked against the rail)However if in fact both rings were
Just lightly tightened enough to keep the scope from coming off, but obviously not holding anything. Now that pin would then be the only thing left still holding against the free recoil every time you fired the gun. But even then, how much force would then be subjected on the pin? Just now wondering how many times with an 06's recoil it would take, to elongate the hole like that?? The only thing that would make any sense here is if that hole was bored oversized??? Then letting the pin move back and forth, but if that were the case the pin would simply fall out???
Something about this just doesnt add up....... :?
With now "hundreds of thousands" of these exact rings, working flawlessly on Tikka rifles it is actually quite amazing you had this problem...........but glad that you got it rectified, with a set of steel ones!

 

[Thebear_78]

Don't underestimate the forces subjected to scope rings. Just because that pin is steel doesn't mean it's not a soft steel pin, I could easily see it bending.I have seen a lot of screws sheared off, even parts of rails breaking. This is only exacerbated by light weight rifles and heavy optics. Recoil speed can have bigger effect in those situations.

I had a t3 in 338 win mag with laminated r stock that was BRUTAL, I used steel optilok rings and never had an issue with the rings but it did split the stock after a hundred rounds or so, most of those laminated 338s I have seen have had stock issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[C.Smith]

C.Smith, it looks like the recoil stud on the bottom of the front ring has bent from recoil. What kind of scope where you using? I guess it couldn't have been too big or you would've needed taller rings. Will have to keep an eye on mine. I have a 4-12 x40 Redfield on mine, pretty standard size and weight.

I was using a Redfield 3-9x40. Nothing to big.

Corey


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk